Sebastian Schuberth <sschube...@gmail.com> writes: > Which raises another question on my side: Isn't it tedious for you to > both update DEF_VER *and* tag a version? Wouldn't it probably be less > error prove (in the sense of keeping DEF_VER and tagged version in > sync) to remove DEF_VER completely and just die if all ways to derive > a Git version fail?
I do not see how it will fly well. Some people want to build out of tarballs without having any "describe", and DEF_VER and version were added for that specific purpose. >> a case where you have your own tag that points at the exact version >> as I tagged? In such a case, do you have a preference on which tag > > No. I always carry patches on top. That answer sidesteps the real issue; which one would you prefer if there are two or more tags? "describe" updated with your patch would consider both and I think it favours the annotated one over lightweight. If it matches the preferred order then G-V-N with you patch would help your workflow; otherwise you would still need a different way, e.g. making sure what you want it to use is always used by doing the ">version" thing. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
